Contents

SPOILER ALERT--It seems that he is Khan after all. I know the film has been released internationally and they will put the plot info in when a film is released, but I want to make sure that this is correct. Because over at Wikipedia, editors have been going back and forth and having it say Cumberbatch is playing Khan then reversing the edits. T-888 (talk) 06:14, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

It is now released in some places, so have at it. :) 31dot (talk) 11:55, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

"Okay, When the film is released. I can tell you that he is not Khan, that much I can tell you. There is nothing in the trailers to suggest that he is, last time I checked Khan was not "One of Starfleet's top Agents" T-888 (talk) 16:37, April 29, 2013 (UTC)"

I understand he is Khan, T-888 was my old wikia account name. The reason I sounded so passionate against him being Khan was I was half-way expecting him not to be as the same time as I was wanting him to be. I have read articles on this wikia as well as wikipedia before I have even seen the film, it does not come out here in America until the 16th so I am waiting to see the whole thing and take it all in, and no need to sound like a 12 year old playing Call of Duty with saying "T-888 got pwn3d" Matt Seay (talk) 19:02, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I used that account because it would not let me use my new one at the time, now let's drop this because this is going far away from the topic of the Film. Matt Seay (talk) 18:27, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Sure brah, although to be honest your comment that there was nothing in the trailer to suggest it was Khan when the last trailer noted the 72 "torpedoes" was a bit foolish.

I know this is a minor point that can be added to the article (or as a separate article) in the future, but Noel Clarke's character's daughter is named. The camera pans down, going past the biomonitor on the wall, as he kisses her on the forehead, and it looked to me to be an Indian surname. Someone who's got a good eye might be able to spot it. --usscantabrian (talk) 02:44, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

dunno where this should go. But reference wise, the NX-01, NX Alpha, CV300 and Phoenix all appeared in Starfleet headquarters as a "Chronology of starflight" type model set up. :) - 15.195.201.90 03:44, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah and it ends with the USS Vengeance model at the end of the line.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by72.87.239.18 (talk).

Why is the Release Date set to the American one? Should it not be the initial release date of the 9th of May?
--BorgKnight (talk) 15:25, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

The US release is considered the primary, but other major locations should also be listed. -- sulfur (talk) 15:33, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why is the US release date considered primary?. And I agree with you that other major locations should be listed--BorgKnight (talk) 15:38, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a US film. I agree, the release dates of other major locations should be listed as well. --Jörg (talk) 15:42, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see ok. Well I don't agree that it should be the country of origins release date but rather its initial release date worldwide. But I would suggest having an International Release date and US release date. --BorgKnight (talk) 15:48, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is that there isn't a single "initial release date worldwide"; it has been staggered depending on the nation. Since the film was made by Americans, in America(just California), meant for Americans, and Star Trek was created by an American.....get the idea? 31dot (talk) 08:58, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with three of your points. But only meant for Americans? I beg to differ! ;-) --Jörg (talk) 09:06, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article merely lists "May" as the release date with the Sydney premiere date listed as well... So this might be the track to take, especially since quite a few countries had the release before the USA (despite where the movie was filmed and financed, technically, it opened here in New Zealand first). --usscantabrian (talk) 22:10, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

With it linked to from every AR bannered page, has no one actually read the spoiler policy? It makes it pretty clear you should all be thanking the US for sharing our franchise with you people, as the US is the only county that matters. ;) - Archduk3 07:45, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I was born in Illinois. I only live in New Zealand. :) --usscantabrian (talk) 01:59, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point to make here for the release date is that when you Google the film it shows the initial release date which is 9th of May. I do think that the release date of a film should be set to its initial release date, regardless of where the film was made. A film like this is not for just an audience in one country, such as the US, but an International audience.--BorgKnight (talk) 00:20, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

That's why we list other release dates, but the film's origin is not irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 01:05, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I am talking about placing the Initial release date rather than the US release date in the sidebar. Should it be the US release date just because it is the country of origin of the film? Other wikis show the initial release date of a program or film rather than the release date of its country of origin.--BorgKnight (talk) 01:56, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Another example as well is that IMDB shows the UK release date of 9 May 2013 rather than the US release date of 16 May 2013. Interesting as well since IMDB is an American based website. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:10, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

No Archduk, that is a most illogical line of reasoning. It is because the Americans are so annoyed having to wait for a week longer than the Internationals, so it should be the US date in the article - to give the impression that this is actually the real date the movie was released to the public :P --[boxed](P.O.Box) 03:19, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I would entirely agree that the release date stated in the sidebar should be the first public release, not the American premiere simply because it is an American product. However I would point out that many episodes of the original series of Star Trek aired in Canada before the USA and ideally they would the be the dates listed on the relevant pages. It might seem like sacrilege to point this out on the 8th of September, but The Man Trap aired in Canada on the 6th. A fact willfully ignored by Americans. It makes a mockery of listing premieres/airdates at all to be nationalistic about them. Igotbit (talk) 09:02, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

You are free to create a Star Trek wiki with a Canadian point of view (or whichever nation you are from). It's not a matter of being "nationalistic" but a reflection of the origin of the product. 31dot (talk) 09:07, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

How kind of you. Why does Memory Alpha need to reflect the origin of the product? The end product is what it is regardless of where it was made. Star Trek Into Darkness is an American film which was released in other countries first thus the earliest release date in the sidebar should reflect that. It would be a simple of statement of fact, whereas what we have now is facts adjusted for national pride. Igotbit (talk) 11:37, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Should an Appendices section with an Errors subsection be added to the main article? — Khaaaaan! (talk) 04:50, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

The anti-Abrams fanboy is strong in you. The only part of your little rant I will dignify with a response is this: Just because it was "less than a minute" in on-screen time does not mean it took "less than a minute" in actual time. You also make a lot of inferences that simply cannot be justified by the data provided. (For the record, I just watched the film, too.) –--Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 07:10, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

We do not have "errors" sections in articles, as doing so is nitpicking. If something can be cited as an error(such as Abrams or the writers saying so) then it could be Background information. 31dot (talk) 09:12, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Scotty clearly states that the events of the film, from the time he objects to the mystery torpedoes and resigns to the time they are at warp returning to earth, took place in less than one day. And "just because it was less than a minute onscreen blah blah blah" — it was one continuous shot, so yes, that does mean that screen time in this instance translates directly to story time.

Have Abrams or the writers admitted that dialog saying the Narada "couldn't possibly be Klingon, we're 75,000km from Klingon space" was erroneous? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to admit they are very bad at details. — Khaaaaan! (talk) 14:23, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

With the article about to transition from being about a film in production to a released product, I have written a mini-synopsis to be posted at the top once the plot is added to the page.

A series of terrorist attacks on Earth places Captain James T. Kirk on a mission to deal with the culprit. Nothing is as it seems, as the Starship Enterprise is entangled in covert machinations to ignite war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, with an ancient enemy in the mix. With alliances tested, relationships strained and differing motives clashing, how costly will the thirst for vengeance prove?

Here's an article that likely aludes to the bar scene with Scotty and Deep Roy's character. I'm not sure if this music was credited in the actual credits (Just saw the early screening last night) or what but here it is:

I have added the summary. Since the film has been released in North America for a few days now, I felt it was now the right time to post it. To prepare myself to write it, I watched the film twice yesterday. I'm fairly certain there are minor errors in terms of the order of events, since I am neither Spock nor Data, but it is roughly at the same level of detail as the other film summaries. I'm sure somebody will change the format of the subsections. I did my best to properly link it, and keep it in present tense except where appropriate. –Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 14:48, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my word, this movie is great! BEST ST I have seen!
Anyway, I see that Admiral Marcus is called the head of Starfleet Command. Does that not make him the CinC? Or must this have been actually stated in the movie to be said on MA?--CrimsondawnTalk yuh talk 12:46, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think the title needs to have been said in dialog, he is just called the head of Starfleet Command. That is is position in the fleet. Matt Seay (talk) 04:18, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who noticed how off the Klingons were in this movie? Why was the one battle group wearing masks? Hiding your face is dishonourable, isn't it? It's obviously not to breathe, everyone else can breathe just fine without masks. The one thing that really got to me was that they misspelled Quo'nos as "Kronos". Probably a nitpick, but come on guys. There's nearly 30 seasons worth of lore. Use it.
While you could argue that they'd be different in a different timeline, I can counter by saying that, besides the destruction of Vulcan, there's nothing that would have changed the Klingons to the point of shame, or to the point of changing the name of their homeworld. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by68.148.4.243 (talk • contribs).

The Klingon helmets are a costcutting measure akin to the original Romulans back when they were the most expensive race on the show, and is noted on several articles. An in-universe rationale has not been mentioned but then there wasn't one as to why the Klingons never wore helmets before. Furthermore, Kronos is acceptable as noted on Qo'noS and is currently under discussion as probably a more appropriate name for the article. --Alientraveller (talk) 13:34, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for general discussion or to criticize the plot; article talk pages are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 14:18, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Why are the Abrams films on Memory Alpha? They are clearly set in an alternative timeline from the mainline Star Trek universe and as such they should not be considered canon and belong on Memory Beta with all the rest of the non-canon Star Trek related material. 69.248.162.128 09:51, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

All filmed Star Trek is considered canon. The alternate reality (not just timeline) branched off from the main one, and it isn't non-canon just because it's an alternate reality or because someone new created it. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but that's the policy we have. Please review MA:CANON for more information. 31dot (talk) 09:53, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

And at exactly what point did this reality branch off from the one that existed in TOS, because I don't see it. I see it as a completely different universe from it's very inception. There are too many things that were already different from the original universe even before the mainline universe Spock arrived. 69.248.162.128 10:04, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know how you justify anything as canon that Gene Roddenberry did not have a direct hand in creating. 69.248.162.128 10:06, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you can accept or dismiss any aspect of the Trek universe that you want to, but for our purposes we accept all filmed Star Trek. No one is forcing you to be here and read or participate in this site; you are free to create your own wiki where only Roddenberry canon is permitted as in-universe content. 31dot (talk) 10:09, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you review this FAQ for some information. 31dot (talk) 10:12, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

To 69.248.162.128 under your thinking then most of Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise and Generations - Nemesis would not be canon that is removing 70% or more of the Star Trek universe Chasemarc (talk) 23:09, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Spock (whoever wrote his lines) made a math error. While on Quo'nos, he stated that their odds of making it out of there was some percentage (I forget the exact number). Odds are always in ratio form (examples: 2:1, 2 to 1, 2/1). He stated it as a percentage (example: 20%). This means that his number either was actually the probability of them making it out, or he forgot a basic, algebra level math rule. There is a slight mathematical difference between odds and probability, as shown below in the basic formulas used to calculate them.

P(A)= Probability of event A happening/ all possible outcomes
Odds in favor of A= Outcomes of A/ Outcomes not A
This slight difference can be illustrated by calculating the probability and odds in
favor of drawing an ace of spades from a standard 52 card deck. P=1/52 Odds=1/51

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but if Spock is going to be called a computer, he should know basic probability.
172.12.18.20 23:38, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

The cast/characters list needs to be checked; I just saw the movie and neither George nor Winona Kirk (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) appear in the second film. It's always possible they appear in deleted scenes, but if so that should be noted. Given both actor's increased media presence post-2009 (with Hemsworth in Thor/The Avengers and Morrison in Once Upon a Time) involvement by either actor would likely have been mentioned in the media. 70.72.211.35 15:43, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

They're credited as their voices are heard when Kirk is unconscious. --Alientraveller (talk) 15:46, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this can be noted in the cast list? 70.72.211.35 07:09, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Considering that there were references to specific events, not just names or concepts as are usually referenced from other media, from the ongoing comic line and Countdown to Darkness, as well as the sheer number of Trek media items Roberto Orci and/or Alex Kurtzman have been involved in, I propose a new status be considered at least for the items referenced, if not all the items Orci and Kurtzman are involved in. The reference to Countdown to Darkness should give it at the very least a semi-canon/near canon status and deem info related to it a higher status than "Apocrypha". Such a status would fit with Mr. Orci's statement in the Startrek.com interview that the media items he was referring to were as close to canon as could be without being on film. Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 20:00, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Apocrypha covers all materials that are not from permitted resources. The primary content of this wiki is filmed Star Trek only. Materials like that comic series have later been contradicted, much like other non-canon works by Trek staff (such as Jeri Taylor's novels) and there is no guarantee that won't happen here. "Close to canon" is not canon- a point which Mr. Orci seems to concede.

I'm not seeing a reason to create some sort of special category for these works; then people who like STO and say it's canon will want a special section for that, for example. 31dot (talk) 20:10, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I feel the first four issues of the ongoing comic were already contradicted early on in the film for example, and that the Mudd incident was probably intended by the writers to just be an encounter with plain old (new timeline) Mudd, hence why they should simply be noted. Canon is the framework for apocrypha to work in, so fans may pick and choose what they believe is "true" in a fictional work. --Alientraveller (talk) 20:36, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

The reason to create a special category is the unprecedented number of items Kurtzman and Orci have been involved in and especially the reference to specific events. Let's do a thought experiment: a novel comes out with its own version of the Mudd Incident. Why should Countdown to Darkness be on equal footing with this hypothetical novel (which both CtD and this novel be in Apocrypha) when there is a clear reference to CtD in the movie (unless of course the Supreme Court reveal it really wasn't a reference to CtD)? --Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 21:06, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, this hypothetical novel with its own take on Kirk's encounter with Mudd would be on equal footing, just as the novel and comic book on Khan's exile on Ceti Alpha V are on equally apocryphal. The novels and comics have also contradicted each other on Data's resurrection, and I remember Chris Bennett has said if he were hired to write a book on Romulus's destruction, he would come up with his own explanation as to why the supernova threatened the galaxy. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Why would it not be "on equal footing"? It doesn't matter who came up with a story or fact, it just matters that it didn't make it on-screen. In the past, producers really meant for the Klingons to have joined the Federation, or for Data having been built by unknown aliens. Using the same reasoning, these bits of information should also be "better" than other background information. --Cid Highwind (talk) 21:53, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

The references to Countdown to Darkness are on-screen and as a unit are clear, meaningful, and have relevance to plot points in the film itself. By not recognizing the authority these references give to the events being referred to, the references are rendered devoid of meaning and more dangerously the authority of facts established on-screen is diminished. Naturally, certain criteria would have to be created if the policy I advocate is enacted. However, Mudd's vessel being used in the film and the reference to the Mudd Incident should meet any reasonable criteria. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 13:23, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Having this information in Apocrypha does not reduce its meaning in any way, nor does it alter what appeared on screen. 31dot (talk) 13:28, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Some information is on-screen, and a comic is used to add further details to that information. That doesn't mean that these additional details are "canon", or in some weird limbo state of "not exactly canon but still more canon than other non-canon information". As an example, the Jeri Taylor novels have already been mentioned. These were considered "canon" by Taylor at the time of writing, but were still easily contradicted by other writers when Taylor no longer was on board. The same could happen here, which is why we generally don't use novel (or similar) information in the main body of our articles. As 31dot, I don't see how adding this information to the same section as other information (while stating where the information is from) somehow "lessens" it. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:42, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, but not in this case because an event, the Mudd Incident, is referred to specifically on-screen and, let's not be coy, we know it's referring to the events of Countdown to Darkness. To my knowledge, the events of an other media item has never been referred to by name and thus deserves special consideration. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 12:03, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Novelizations often expand on the episode or film(the Generations novel tells us where LaForge got his "nanoprobe" that Crusher removed in the film from); that doesn't grant such information a special status in those cases. 31dot (talk) 12:32, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I get that, but I'm not talking about a novelization which is usually based off from older versions of film scripts. I'm talking about a prequel comic that has events referenced by name on film. It's one thing for a comic or novel to come out after a movie and explain a vague reference to an event in a film. It's a totally different thing for an event or events from a novel or comic or game that's already released to be referenced on-screen, as is the case with Countdown to Darkness. I can deal with it not being considered canon; only what's onscreen is canon and all, I get. What I don't get is that the events of a comic that we know are clearly referenced onscreen could potentially be put on the same level as an alternate telling that isn't referenced onscreen. It should be clear to anyone who is familiar with Countdown to Darkness that the Mudd Incident spoken of in Star Trek Into Darkness are the events described in CtD, not of some untold incident involving Harry Mudd. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 22:10, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't totally different; Hikaru Sulu's first name was initially from a novel, even the recent character George Kirk's name was also from a novel. We treat that information the same as all other Apocrypha information- we state that's where it came from. The same goes for events from these comics- we state that the various mentions in the film talk about events from CtD. That's what we did with the original Countdown comic, and what we should do here. 31dot (talk) 22:56, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Names are one thing, references like the teral'n or even the dead tribble in sickbay are one thing, I am suggesting that the naming of the incident because of its specificity, and other reasons I've written above, makes the reference merit some kind of different treatment; perhaps not what I originally proposed, but couldn't the events of CtD be given some sort of slightly higher distinction/recognition within the Apocrypha section than any other media item describing the Mudd Incident, at least unless or until it is contradicted on-screen or by the Supreme Court? -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 00:54, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

It seems though, at least the impression that I got was this was referring to the Mudd from the normal Star Trek timeline, and possibly his ship that the Enterprise encountered early in the series. It seems therefore that this reference, which is no doubt intentional, may be taken in any number of ways. With that being the case, unless the writers directly state somewhere exactly what occurrence of 'Mudd' they were referring to there, the comment about the origin of the ship should be removed.174.26.198.100 00:57, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

You are right the reference can be taken in more than one way, but that's only so those not familiar with Countdown to Darkness won't feel like they're missing something so despite a certain vagueness in the reference there can be little doubt if one is familiar with CtD that the Mudd Incident is referring to the events occurring therein. Plus, if the reference had been much clearer, CtD would have basically been made canon through the back door. Therefore, I vote against removing the comment. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun (talk) 20:00, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Interviews with Orci/Kurtzman seem to hint that they had Harry Mudd in line when writing the dialogue in the film. [1] It can reasonably be assumed that when working on the prequel they thought this would be a good item to expand on. So, much like the prequel comics for the Marvel movies, the movie wasn't referencing the comic; the comic was in reference to the forthcoming movie. (I'd further guess the reason they used Mudd's daughter instead of Mudd was to avoid locking themselves into anything should Mudd be used on-screen later.)

You could use similar logic to say that McCoy delivering the Gorn octuplets was in reference to the game, but the line practically contradicts the game. The best resolution I can find is McCoy making things up to show off to Marcus, although even that raises the question of why he would use a recently discovered extra-galactic species she likely wouldn't have heard of. (A random Paramount exec has said the game is canon, but I'm not really sure why he thinks he gets to decide that.)

Orci himself has given conflicting answers as to whether the comics/games are considered canon, and only once stated that the comics might be when TrekMovie backed him into a corner. Also note that Orci himself has repeatedly said that he's not the final authority on what is or isn't canon. To my knowledge, the rest of the "supreme court" (Abrams/Kurtzman/Burk/Lindelof) has not established anything either way.--Cap'n Calhoun (talk) 15:25, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure the ending of the film is one year after the Khan crisis? At least according to IDW's comic timeline the "After Darkness" story arc is set in 2259 still (and the crew is seen aboard the Enterprise at that point), not in 2260. Couldn't the whole "a year ago" simply be referring to the anniversary of the Battle of Vulcan? Even in the Into Darkness novelization there is no one year gap in the end. While the refit of the Enterprise would probably take a considerable amount of time, I guess it would still be plausible that they finished it during 2259. After all, the events of Into Darkness take place quite early in the year (the stardate cited in the film, 2259.55, would be late February if I'm not mistaken). Thoughts? Tinwe(hailing frequency) 14:41, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

He was clearly talking of the events of the film and not the previous film. Kirk says that they were gathered to honor those who were lost "nearly a year ago". So not a whole year. I would agree that the film probably took place in 2259 since the .55 does not mean that the beginning of the film was halfway through the year, but that it was just 55 days into the year, in the abramsverse-stardate system. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:33, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Has this interpretation of the new stardate system been mentioned on-screen in one of the two movies? If not, we shouldn't use it to base any other date extrapolation on, an generally not use it outside of background sections. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:42, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing using it anywhere for anything or basing anything on it. All we know for certain is that the beginning of the film takes place in "2259" and ends "nearly a year" later. Assuming the ending takes place in 2260 is speculation. That was my point. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the 2260 from the article since it was based on speculation and an interpretation of stardates that is against the screenwriters intent as you can read from the stardate article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:32, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

If this is the consensus and we leave it open for the damage to the Enterprise and San Francisco be repaired within a year then we ought to remove all references to 2260 in relevant articles. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:19, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to replace "In 2260," with "Nearly a year after stardate2259.55," in all articles that reference this and leave it just as ambiguous as the movie did. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:58, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

It was on his resume for months prior to the film's release.--Spock78 (talk) 20:53, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I can put on my resume that I was in the film; that doesn't mean that I was. We need some sort of independent corroboration. We've run into this issue with other movie staff. 31dot (talk) 20:59, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

When the enterprise dropped out of warp when the Vengance attacked it, it dropped out of warp by leaving that warp tunnel with the outside of the warp tunnel showing. That's not supposed to happen that way. When a ship drops out of warp, the warp tunnel is supposed to vanish behind the vessel. I know in the prime reality the warp tunnel was basically stars flying by and in the new reality the warp tunnel is like the mini version of the quantum slipstream from voyager. But the vanishing of the warp tunnel behind the ship should be applied to the new warp tunnel in the new reality as it did wish the old warp tunnel in the prime reality. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.188.58.225 (talk).

There is no canon information available on how the warp drive works in the alternate reality, or how it is related to the prime universe warp drive used by the Federation. Discussion pages are not for stating nitpicks about effects. These are for discussions about improving the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:58, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Is there any script or other bg source to indicate that Kirk and Spock talked with Marcus in his, or even an, office? It seems to me they were using a lobby or some other type of open area instead of an office specifically since Khan knew about their normal meeting locations. - Archduk3 21:20, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think it may even be filmed in the same Getty museum lobby that also stood stood in for the lobby-like space Kirk walks passes through on his way to the Daystrom meeting room. (not 100% sure, but they look extremely similar). Plus the room has a huge staircase and open corridors that lead god knows where and is directly connected to the outside too. Not exactly the kind of place you want to conduct confidential meetings in. On the other hand, I assumed that was just starfleet's enlightened style or something, for the upper management to be extremely approachable. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:46, October 5, 2013 (UTC)